Sex

[Msterbeau]

I get jealous when another woman LOOKs at my man......

*Thinks about hitting on Keely's man just to see how she reacts to a man doing it.* :whistling

[Blackmail]

Addiction to sex, relationships, drugs, alchohol, food, etc... they are all part of people's coping mechanisms gone haywire ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're probably right and the reality is that - most likely - no one on this planet is 100% completely mentally healthy. We all have issues, fears, phobias and insecurities that make us act one way or another.

[kellygrrrrrl]

My coping mechanisms include:

Smoking

Cigarettes/pot

Sex.....maybe? I am obsessed with sex.....but not addicted to it.

I found that when I had quit smoking, this became a very noticable fact.

All of the things I had pushed away came up in strange ways.....like I had to cope with them all over again.

Then I started smoking again..... :doh :confused

[torn asunder]

(ok, sorry that this is so long...) :fear

you were correct ted, i was referring to myself, but in a small way, i was also referring to today's society. (quick note - yes, people are asking for help from dr. drew, so i agree he's not telling anyone what to do - however, i think that anyone who would blindly act on anothers' advice will never be happy anyway. take his thoughts as input? great! act on it verbatim, without considering alternate sources/ideas? you need help) in my opinion, it's a rare person who is capable of having a lasting, lifelong commitment to one person in today's society. people don't know how to be happy with themselves anymore and they depend on a significant other (or some other external) for that. as long as this is the case, marriages will fail. does anyone know what the divorce rate is now? i can't remember, but i know it's pretty damn high, and in my opinion, it's because most people end up thinking the "grass is greener" somewhere else, or blame their partner for their unhappiness/dissatisfaction in life, and stray/leave them because of it, when all along, the individual is the one solely rsponsible for their own happiness. we, as individuals in this society, (and yes, i'm generalizing here) have become selfish and self-centered, separate and alone, disconnected and scared, and as long as this trend continues, i feel monogamy (ok, maybe "faithfulness" is a better term) will not be plausible for a majority of the people. (remember, my opinion!)

as for other cultures that have been open (also, i'm not fully condoning marriageless living, just more tolerance for other choices - i think marriage for some can be exactly what they need) and failed, (and i realize my knowledge is very limited, but i'll go with what little i know) weren't a majority of them some kind of monarchy-type society?(now that i think about it, aren't there societies that allow/condone things like harems/concubines/etc that currently exist and are flourishing? i may be wrong, but i'm thinking mostly of middle-eastern cultures, monarchs, etc. didn't china and japan at one point, if not still, allow/condone multiple wives? those cultures still exist, even if they did change to meet current "peer pressure" from other nations/cultures) possibly the ones that failed were doomed to fail regardless of their openness!? our culture here in america, seems to me to be different than the others, because we preach/condone freedom - freedom of choice, freedom of/from religion, etc... i don't see where openness in sexuaity and relationships would necessarily doom our "democracy" (and i use that term lightly) we are a young nation, and we have the opportunity to create whatever we will, and i think we are capable of supporting so-called "alternative lifestyles", so long as they're not harming others, or treading on others' rights.

as for the best way to raise a child being with a father and a mother, i think you're missing the point. the key word in your sentence is "loving" and i don't think who/what gender/what orientation the parental unit(s) are makes any difference, so long as their supportive, and open, and caring and loving. teaching people/children respect for others, to treat people well, and to act from a center of love has little to do (in my opinion) with your religious/sexual preferences. i was raised by my mother, with no father figure to speak of - i'm not maladjusted, nor am i a menace to society because of it. in fact, i think i'm a rather healthy, well-adjusted person who has something of value to add to this world. a father cheating on a mother (or vice-versa - but then, how does one define cheating?) is not a good family upbringing. (i assume that's what you're saying!?) again, that has little to do with gender/religion, is has to do with the kind of person involved. if you raise a child to be accepting of open/gay/alternative relationships, and can show how they can work, and set a great example of love and caring no matter the family dynamic, how can that be bad? i don't mean to belabour the point, but the conventions of relationships have little to do with how loving they are.

ok, someone else's turn!!

[Msterbeau]

you're probably right and the reality is that - most likely - no one on this planet is 100% completely mentally healthy.  We all have issues, fears, phobias and insecurities that make us act one way or another.

Yup. I will laugh in the face of anyone who thinks they have no issues. My therapist, who has done a vast amount of her own work in the past, admits to having stuff to work on still. It's a never ending process.

A side note... I've said this before: Run away from any mental health professional who hasn't gone through the work of working through their own issues. They have no business helping you with yours if they don't have a reasonable handle on their own. Having talked with some that have, it's shocking how many haven't.

Another funny aside. I dated a woman who was finishing her doctorate in psychology. She wrote a letter in response to an article on dating people who have gone through therapy, titled "Why I like my men pre-shrunk." :laughing

[Msterbeau]

Addressing one little part of TA's last post ... about rasing children in non-traditional home situations. I wonder if these situations have been cited as "less healthy" because the children were judged against their "normal" peers? Non-traditional kids = failure?

Just wondering...

[Saephyr]

Most of the 'slut types' no fingers being pointed...are depressed.

WE are tryign to fill a void that comes from feeling unattatched to someone long term.

I loved my relationship and although I firt like MAD I still was terribly in love with the man and not willing to give/receive sex from anyone else while we were together.

I personally think that running around like the 'ethical slut' I am completely sucks the mayor and I'd give anything to have my life of monogamy back just so I could feel stronger from the inside out.

JUST MY OWN OPINION ....FYI

[kellygrrrrrl]

*Thinks about hitting on Keely's man just to see how she reacts to a man doing it.*  :whistling

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HEY! That's MAH MAN!

[Blackmail]

Addressing one little part of TA's last post ... about rasing children in non-traditional home situations.  I wonder if these situations have been cited as "less healthy" because the children were judged against their "normal" peers?  Non-traditional kids = failure?

Just wondering...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See this is where I disagree with you and TA and agree more with Dr. Laura.

A male and a female offer a balance that would be difficult to replicate in a same sex parental unit. Futhermore, children raised by their biological parents tend to be better adjusted than adopted children in general.

Anyway there is definately and undeniably a benefit of both maternal feminity and fatherly masculinity that helps develop a child, this happens even in nature.

[bean]

I really was trying to avoid this thread, but here I am. Hopefully I won't blab on for too long.

I was raised by a mother and father and they didn't do the best job. I've gone through more shit than most of you could imagine, but I'm not going to go into detail here because it's way too private. There are only a few people in the world that know all the details. I know these things helped shape me into the person I am today and influenced a lot of the choices I made. Yay, I fit the profile, big fucking deal. Anyway. Here's the shorter version:

I avoided monogamy because I wanted to avoid having an emotional attachment to someone. Life was just easier for me if I only had physical relationships and let myself be emotionally dead. Physical pain is easier to deal with than emotional pain. At one point I opened my heart a tiny bit when I met my husband, but then some things happened and I shut back down again and swore I would never allow myself to feel again. Today, I'm with one person only and I've opened myself up to him completely, even though I worry every single day that my heart is going to get torn apart. But it's worth it. I've never felt so alive in my life. Yeah, I get my days when I'm depressed, but that's life. I can honestly say that the sex is the best I've ever had, and I think a part of it is because there is the emotional connection. I don't think I could go back to the way I used to be. It feels like I'm looking in on another person when I think back to what I used to do. This doesn't mean that I look down on others who choose that sort of life - I believe that everyone is free to do what they want.

People with similar interests tend to congregate, duh. I wouldn't want to hang around people who would talk shit about the life I choose to live. I would want to be around people who are accepting of me.

I think there was supposed to be a point in there somewhere..ooops...

And I'm sorry, but Dr. Laura is a twit.

[kellygrrrrrl]

I really was trying to avoid this thread, but here I am.  Hopefully I won't blab on for too long.

I was raised by a mother and father and they didn't do the best job.  I've gone through more shit than most of you could imagine, but I'm not going to go into detail here because it's way too private.  There are only a few people in the world that know all the details.  I know these things helped shape me into the person I am today and influenced a lot of the choices I made.  Yay, I fit the profile, big fucking deal.  Anyway.  Here's the shorter version:

I avoided monogamy because I wanted to avoid having an emotional attachment to someone.  Life was just easier for me if I only had physical relationships and let myself be emotionally dead.  Physical pain is easier to deal with than emotional pain.  At one point I opened my heart a tiny bit when I met my husband, but then some things happened and I shut back down again and swore I would never allow myself to feel again.  Today, I'm with one person only and I've opened myself up to him completely, even though I worry every single day that my heart is going to get torn apart.  But it's worth it.  I've never felt so alive in my life.  Yeah, I get my days when I'm depressed, but that's life.  I can honestly say that the sex is the best I've ever had, and I think a part of it is because there is the emotional connection.  I don't think I could go back to the way I used to be.  It feels like I'm looking in on another person when I think back to what I used to do.  This doesn't mean that I look down on others who choose that sort of life - I believe that everyone is free to do what they want.

People with similar interests tend to congregate, duh.  I wouldn't want to hang around people who would talk shit about the life I choose to live.  I would want to be around people who are accepting of me.

I think there was supposed to be a point in there somewhere..ooops...

And I'm sorry, but Dr. Laura is a twit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are spunky and sarcastic at the same time, w/ a twist of pessimism.

I like you. =)

We could be beautiful friends!

[bean]

You are spunky and sarcastic at the same time, w/ a twist of pessimism.

I like you. =)

We could be beautiful friends!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks....you're full of sass...I can see this thing working out

[torn asunder]

See this is where I disagree with you and TA and agree more with Dr. Laura.

A male and a female offer a balance that would be difficult to replicate in a same sex parental unit.  Futhermore, children raised by their biological parents tend to be better adjusted than adopted children in general.   

Anyway there is definately and undeniably a benefit of both maternal feminity and fatherly masculinity that helps develop a child, this happens even in nature.

i have no problem agreeing to disagree with you! *grin*

i don't see where male/female should *necessarily* have anything to do with the balance you're reffering to - i have many friends, some "straight", some gay/lesbian, some of whom are quite masculine, and some quite feminine, from both genders and all lifestyles. to me, it all depends on the personalities involved, not just their physiology. the same goes for biological vs. adoptive parents, and as it happens, i'm adopted myself! ;-) i agree that the things you are talking about reflect the way things are currently, and i don't debate that aspect of it - the generalities you cite are most often the case. my argument is that it shouldn't/doesn't have to be that way, and saying that because it's true currently, means it should stay that way, is a dangerous attitude to take. i don't believe in "tradition" for tradition's sake - if you've explored it, and it works for you, great, but i don't think it's right to tell others they should/have to do the same, because it might not be right for them. (it's that whole, "if so-n-so jumped off a bridge, would you do it!?" attitude for me) again, to me, what it comes down to is personal responsibility and choice. i don't think there is any one "right" way to do anything, and i think there will always be a "better" way. if we don't explore what that might be, we'll eventually stagnate.

and, as for dr. laura, all i can say is this... (which, as is stated, i received in an email - i think it's very amusing, and makes a very valid point...)

DISCLAIMER:

I received this email from a friend. I do not contend to agree or disagree with its contents or p.o.v. I have on occassion listened to the Dr. Laura show and have found some of her points amusing, mainly due to the clueless idiots seeking advice from her. Nuff said.

Subject: Dr. Laura

>

>

> Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice

> to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that,

> as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination

> according to the Old Testament, Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be

> condoned under any circumstance.

> The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US

> resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as

> informative.

> Dear Dr. Laura:

> Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

> I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that

> knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend

> the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that

> Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of

> debate.

> I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other

> specific laws and how to follow them.

> 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it

> creates a pleasing smell for the Lord - Leviticus 1:9. The problem

> is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them.

> Should I smite them?

> 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

> Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what to you think would be a fair

> price for her?

> 3. I know that I am not allowed to have contact with a woman while

> she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Leviticus 15:19-24.

> The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women

> take offense.

> 4. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both

> male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring

> nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but

> not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

> 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus

> 35:2 clearly states she should be put to death. Am I morally

> obligated to kill him myself?

> 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an

> abomination - Leviticus 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than

> homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

> 7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God

> if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading

> glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle

> room here?

> 8. Most of my male friends get their hair cut, including the hair

> around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by the

> bible, in Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

> 9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead

> pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

> 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting

> two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing

> garments mad of two different kinds of thread (cotton and polyester

> blend). He also tends to curse a lot. Is it really necessary that

> we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone

> them? - Leviticus 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at

> a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their

> in-laws? Leviticus 20:14

> I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident

> you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is

> eternal and unchanging.

> Your devoted fan, Jim

>

[Blackmail]

I didn't know Dr. Laura said that stuff, in fact she has denied much of the quotes attributed to her, I agree with her more on the need for masculine/feminine parental unit.

But TA, saying you shouldn't say what is right for people is a bit naive on your part, in my opinion. Look at this very thread, most of the people have admitted their "deviant" behavior is tied to upbringing, you're the only one who seems to be ok with it.

So I think advising people to stay away from "open relationships" is probably good advice. Maybe not for 100% of all people, but for 99.9% of people. I know a few more who havn't posted here who also have horror stories.

As for tradition for traditions sake, the traditions we have today work for most people. Western Culture works, in general. It's values, it's traditions, it's moral compass has outlasted every other culture in the history of the world.

So I would say, to rebel for rebellions sake is what I am opposed to. Look around, most people are doing fine. Most of my friends who have grown up with me in a "traditional" manner are happy and starting families and buying their first houses.

It's only when I go to DGN or talk to my goth friends do I see the other side, and these are the people who live a different lifestye.

So, it seems to me that living the more "traditional" life is what serves people best. Just look at this thread or DGN or City Club for evidence of what straying can do.

I don't mean to imply everyone should be robots and follow a formula to live life. Not at all. I am merely stating that we have these traditions because it's a tired and tested way of living.

And while being a swinger may work for you, I would suggest you do some research on the subject (HBO had a great documentary on the poly lifestyle) something like 98% of all open relationships fail (don't quote me on the exact number but they very rarely work). It seems to me that humans were in fact meant to be monogamous, if not, then why do we feel jealousy? Isn't jealousy one of the most human traits anyway?

[bean]

I know plenty of people who are "traditional" that are just as miserable and in some cases even more miserable than us "nontraditional" people.

[Brenda Starrr]

And I'm sorry, but Dr. Laura is a twit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't be sorry. Dr. Laura IS a twit.

I know plenty of people who are "traditional" that are just as miserable and in some cases even more miserable than us "nontraditional" people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen, sister!

[Shade Everdark]

The problem, it seems to me (and I'm pontificating, and I apologize), is that the comparison between alternative lifestyles, in partcular goth culture and those satellites surrounding it, and the mainstream culture is that one of the focal ponits of goth is that you don't hide your pain. You embrace it, you keep it out in the open, you explore it and delve into it, to understand it better. It was in part a rejection of the mainstream, middle American idea that negative thoughts, ideas, or feelings should be kept out of sight, denied, or at best, dealt with in entirely closed sessions with therapists (yes, I'm seeing one too). You don't often get to see all the problems that tend to crop up, because they get swept under the carpet.

I don't deny your point, Blackmail; in fact, as much as I am loath to, I probably have to agree with it, to a certain extent. It has worked for a long time. However, to say that it is therefore the only model that works, or that it is thusly the best model to follow is, I think, a bit of misdirection. For most people, if they are happy that way, then yes, it would be the best course to take. But for those of us who do have problems, whether from poor homelife or (in my case) problems of our own making, alternative lifestyles suit our brands of problems better.

It's perhaps simply a question of priorities.

[torn asunder]

first off, let me say that i'm enjoying this discussion immensely!

But TA, saying you shouldn't say what is right for people is a bit naive on your part, in my opinion. Look at this very thread, most of the people have admitted their "deviant" behavior is tied to upbringing, you're the only one who seems to be ok with it.

So I think advising people to stay away from "open relationships" is probably good advice. Maybe not for 100% of all people, but for 99.9% of people. I know a few more who havn't posted here who also have horror stories.

in my opinion, telling someone what they should do is wrong, period. i think that everyone is entitiled to make their own decisions, and to that end, when i talk with anyone about questions they have, (let's use the open relationships issue for this example) i will ask what their current opinion is of it, what they would expect from it, good & bad, what the general outcomes could possibly be, what they would do/how they would react in each of the general outcomes, help them to consider all possibilities, and let them decide if they're willing to deal with whatever results come from the choice they make. at that point, it's entirely their decision, and i have no right to tell them what to do. most people may associate their behavior with their upbringing, but to me, that's just shifting responsibility away from themselves and laying it off on others, which keeps them in a "victim" role, where they can remain "helpless", and stay in their comfort zone. it take a lot of courage to accept responsibility for everything you've brought into your life, and also to accept that you're the only person who can change your life. it's so much easier to blame "fate", "life", "my family", "that stoopid cop", "the kids at school", etc. but it will keep you down, defeated, unhappy, and "victimized" by life. personal responsibility... it's all up to you, and you alone.

As for tradition for traditions sake, the traditions we have today work for most people. Western Culture works, in general. It's values, it's traditions, it's moral compass has outlasted every other culture in the history of the world.

So I would say, to rebel for rebellions sake is what I am opposed to. Look around, most people are doing fine. Most of my friends who have grown up with me in a "traditional" manner are happy and starting families and buying their first houses.

and i agree with you on "rebelling for rebellions sake” - i’m not saying our culture doesn’t work. it may be a fine place to start, but eastern cultures work too, as do middle-eastern, european, south american, and african cultures - they’re still here as well. i disagree about it outlasting every other culture in the world - hell, the chinese culture was around long before christ was - and last i checked, it was still here! it’s true, most of the people you know are doing fine, but it’s their choice to live that way. many of the people i’ve grown up with are doing the same - that’s not the point. of course, anyone is entitled to express their opinion, especially if asked, but to tell someone they’re wrong, because they choose not to “follow the norm” is close-minded. (not saying you do that, or are, just making a general statement) i’m sure the people who live in much of the muslim world would tell their friends/family the same as you’re telling yours.

and shade, nicely put...

[Onyx]

I know plenty of people who are "traditional" that are just as miserable and in some cases even more miserable than us "nontraditional" people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From all outward appearances I had a perfect life a few years ago. I had a husband with a well-paying job, two gorgeous children, a huge house (4 bedroom with a basement, 2 acre landscaped yard) 2 1/2 car garage complete with the obligatory boat, a well-paying career myself and just about every gadget and convenience you can imagine.

Just typing this out makes me cringe. I was so miserable I can't even describe it.

Traditional lifestyles don't necessarily equal a good or happy life. I do regret that my children have been put through a divorce, but I'd never trade my life now for my life then.

I do very much understand what is being said about monogamy though. Very interesting discussion.

[AstralCrux]

Maybe there is a point to all the sexual deviency... Let's examine. Western culture, specifically before the 1960s sexual revolution, used marriage to more or less tie down a woman to the man she married and discouraged sex before marriage. With divorce so largely frowned upon there is no way we can compare divorce rates to tell how happy these people were. They also supported completely different ways of thinking in terms of respect for others.

We see currently, that many people ask for advice with relationships in terms of one person has a higher sex drive and the other has very little. In the pre-1960s culture you don't get the benefits of finding out whether you are sexually compatable. But, with the current form of sexual deviency- sex before marriage, we can make more logical decisions for our relationships. In a sense test the waters.

In early farming cultures polyandry, one woman and more than one husband, was encouraged and considered "normal."

Some forms of polyandry appear to be associated with a) the perceived need to retain aristocratic titles or agricultural lands within kin groups, and/or b) with frequent male absence, for long periods, from the household. As to the former variety, consider that in Tibet where the practice is particularly popular among the wealthy Sakya priestly nobility as well as poor small farmers who could ill afford to divide their small holdings. As to the latter variety, as some males return to the household, others leave for a long time, so that there is (was) usually one husband present.  http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Polyandry 

In this sense, it seems that this is more common out of necessity.

However, with polygyny, one man and more than one wife, the advantage is to "spread the seed" in a sense. Polygyny, throughout history, is much more prevailent (sp). I believe this is due to the nature of humans to continue the species. (woah! too many anthro classes, eh?) I'm going with an animal nature stance with polygyny, especially since the biological clock continues with most women to be a strong reason to have children and I find that to be part of a more animal nature. Females over history are, I hate to say it, best situated caring for children- not only is it in their nature, but menstrual issues prevent them from constant hunting especially in a hunter-gatherer society. Males have an animal urge, some stronger than others- which is why not all men are polyamarous, to spread their seed.

(I got a bit off the original intent, hopefully not too far. Dang it I need books for research and lots of notecards to be able to keep on track!)

Emotional needs... I'll have to get back to the topic later brain froze...

What do you see as the difference in emotional needs between monogamy and polyamary?

[Killer_Bunnie]

What do you see as the difference in emotional needs between monogamy and polyamary?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

from where I am my emotional needs are far from filled. I try to understand that he loves us both, but he doesn't like to show it when others are around. I don't ask much, I expect people to call or come over when they say they will, and do the things they promise. after all that we've been through, I really don't feel that most of my emotional needs have been met because the other person also wants to spend all their free time with him, and since I dislike her and avoid her, but live further away I get less in most aspects. I don't understand our relationship at all anymore, but still refuse to leave it.

[JaneDead]

I know plenty of people who are "traditional" that are just as miserable and in some cases even more miserable than us "nontraditional" people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so true

So I think advising people to stay away from "open relationships" is probably good advice.  Maybe not for 100% of all people, but for 99.9% of people.  I know a few more who havn't posted here who also have horror stories. ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sure - giving this advice to someone who is asking or seeking a different way to live/be ... it could be considered good advice.

but to just tell everyone who lives this way that they shouldn't really doesn't do any good.

whether we agree with a lifestyle or not, it is not our place to tell other people how to live. or what is a better way to be.

i am a straight married mother of 3 but i would never suggest that my lifestyle is what is the best for everyone.

[Blackmail]

so true

sure - giving this advice to someone who is asking or seeking a different way to live/be ... it could be considered good advice.

but to just tell everyone who lives this way that they shouldn't really doesn't do any good.

whether we agree with a lifestyle or not, it is not our place to tell other people how to live. or what is a better way to be.

i am a straight married mother of 3 but i would never suggest that my lifestyle is what is the best for everyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok I never said if you live a traditional life you will be happy automatically, so you people are being extremely lazy in your replies. I said due to the extremely high number of unhappy people involved in "open relationships" it would in fact, be bad advice to advise someone to participate in an open relationship simply on a statistical basis. Do you disagree? If you disagree then you should really do some research on this topic. Or read DGN.

Secondly I never said I think telling people how to live their lives is something someone should do.

However a quick read of this thread, threads all over DGN, studies done by psychologists and countless number of articles on polygamy, orgies and would suggest that it is mostly unhappy people who engage in certain sex acts.

So, getting back to point at hand, again this is not telling people how to live their lives.....

please answer these questions:

1) Why did the study I read in mens health indicate that it is mostly unhappy people who engage in "deviant" sex acts? I will track it down hopefully and post it here.

2) Why do most of the people on DGN admit that it is unhappiness that leads them to these type of acts?

3) Why do almost every sexual therapist I've seen talk or spoken to (aside from one that I can remember) advise against some of the things mentioned in this thread? My uncle is a psychologist's who got his masters from the University of Michigan, hardly a lightweight....when I told him about DGN about a year ago and some of the stories he said "there is obviously a history of abuse of some form in these people's past". Turns out, it's true.

4) So how did he know that without knowing most of the people?

Also please do not misquote me anymore. It's happened enough in this thread.

[Onyx]

from where I am my emotional needs are far from filled. I try to understand that he loves us both, but he doesn't like to show it when others are around. I don't ask much, I expect people to call or come over when they say they will, and do the things they promise. after all that we've been through, I really don't feel that most of my emotional needs have been met because the other person also wants to spend all their free time with him, and since I dislike her and avoid her, but live further away I get less in most aspects. I don't understand our relationship at all anymore, but still refuse to leave it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I can see why you'd object. I also know how it is to have trouble breaking away from someone even when they have hurt you.

At the risk of sounding like I'm stereotyping and man-bashing, this sort of situation is what I seem to see in poly couples. Usually there is a female in a relationship who wants the man to be exclusive, however she stays with him and tolerates poly behavior rather than lose him altogether.

It seems it's usually the man's suggestion and usually solely benefits him.

I'm just not wired that way myself so I just can't comprehend how a man (or a woman) can be okay with sharing their partner. If it's someone I'm emotionally close to the idea is heartbreaking to me. It's really not a morals thing, seems to be just the way I'm wired.

[Draco1958]

please answer these questions:

1)  Why did the study I read in mens health indicate that it is mostly unhappy people who engage in "deviant" sex acts?  I will track it down hopefully and post it here.

2)  Why do most of the people on DGN admit that it is unhappiness that leads them to these type of acts?

3)  Why do almost every sexual therapist I've seen talk or spoken to (aside from one that I can remember) advise against some of the things mentioned in this thread?  My uncle is a psychologist's who got his masters from the University of Michigan, hardly a lightweight....when I told him about DGN about a year ago and some of the stories he said "there is obviously a history of abuse of some form in these people's past".    Turns out, it's true.

4)  So how did he know that without knowing most of the people?

Also please do not misquote me anymore.  It's happened enough in this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1.Not being a part of the study, one can only guess so here's my guess. Most studies use control groups. And it has been proven many times that A. people will lie to avoid the truth if they feel the truth would be embarrassing, B. being that most studies have been shown to be rigged to lean one way or another, I disount those studies since some of them will look for those unhappy and into deviant sex and look for happy people leading a normal(societies version of normal) lives.

2. Because unhappy people look for something to fill a void. I used to belong to an orgy group, yes I am unhappy and no, I never suffered any abuse(kills that theory some). I have trouble meeting and dating ladies so I looked for something to fill a void until I could find someone, I no longer go but am still single.

3. Most psychologists are taught in school what is considered the norm and to deviate from that is wrong period. Now considering at one time deviant behavior was considered the norm, it was never questioned until societal feelings changed, personally I believe do to the increase of christianity in the world, and suddenly it was wrong and looked down upon.

4. Because it a common belief that abused people are into deviant behavior more than non abused yet I know many people who enjoy devaint sexual behavior who were never abused, never used drugs and are basically happy at home, at work etc. The problem is that studies take a small supposedly random group and ask questions. Reality is that people doing the studies look for specific people to get specific answers which taints a study. Yet no one seems to question that, just accept it as statistical fact period.

Now this is strictly my opinion and not a reflection of or pointing fingers at anyone responding to this thread. I just believe society is trying to put it's 2 cents worth on everyone and make us conform to what they feel is right and wrong. For the most part I can agree with that since that is what tells us what is right or wrong to do to people such as stealing, hurting, killing and such. But there are times it needs to stay out of the bedroom. In my opinion, this thread is leaning towards telling/informing or maybe even saying outright that deviant behavior is wrong and that most of the DGN people need professional help because some of them enjoy it. My personal belief is that if no one is getting hurt(except for those who like pain) and one is happy with their life, why worry about it. I just don't believe that bringing out peoples personal lives onto a forum to debate is right. I don't care what happens in other peoples bedrooms. That's between them and whoever they share it with. But this is just my own opinion. After all what do I know, I don't have a psychology degree. I haven't interacted enough with enough people to form my own study/opinion of who does what and whether they are happy, unhappy, abused, not abused etc. And personally I don't care, because the people I have met here and nice, courtious and I hope one day to meet in person and say we are friends.